In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., Appeal 2016-1678-1679 (April 2017), Novartis appealed two PTAB decisions holding claims of two patents obvious over cited prior art (IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550), arguing that previous judicial holdings of non-obviousness should control the PTAB’s factual findings and that the claims should have been held non-obvious.

The two Novartis patents at issue (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,316,023 and 6,335,031) were from the same patent family and are directed to a pharmaceutical composition comprising rivastigmine (Exelon®) and an antioxidant for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.  
Continue Reading PTAB Not Always Bound By Previous Court Decisions Regarding Patent Validity

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017) attracted much attention for applying the theory of divided infringement in the context of pharmaceutical therapeutic regimen claims.  Before the Federal Circuit decision, a scrum of petitioners successfully petitioned for IPR of the Lilly patent, alleging that the claims were obvious in view of a combination of references that included prior art considered by the court in the litigation. Our previous post highlighted the potential for inconsistent results that AIA trials may present relative to district court actions concerning the same patent. 
Continue Reading Eli Lilly’s Pemetrexed Therapy Claims Survive Challenge At PTAB

Pending Supreme Court Decisions

An updated discussion of this issue is available here: The Supreme Court Finds IPR Proceedings Constitutional

The Supreme Court will decide during its October 2017 term “Whether inter partes review—an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents—violates the Constitution by extinguishing…

Two recent Federal Circuit decisions illustrate how an error in construing claims may lead the court to reverse a PTAB final written decision. In Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm & Haas Co., the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB correctly construed the disputed claim term, “swelling agent,” and therefore affirmed the PTAB’s decisions upholding the patentability of challenged claims directed to processes for preparing emulsion polymers. In contrast, in Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp., decided on the same day, the court determined that the PTAB erred in construing the term “roofing or building cover material” too narrowly, and thus reversed the PTAB’s decision canceling claims directed to methods of applying polymer “nail tabs” on roofing and building cover material.  
Continue Reading Error in Claim Construction Leads to Reversal of IPR Decision and Cancelation of Claims

In the November 14, 2017, Federal Register, the Patent Office issued its final rule setting and adjusting the fees the Office charges for its products and services, including relatively substantial increases for standard AIA trial fees (as shown below). As a simple example, a petitioner challenging all claims of a patent containing 30 claims will pay 37% more in fees for inter partes review ($42,500 v. $31,000), and 33% more in fees for post grant or covered business method review ($54,125 v. $40,750). These AIA trial fees become effective on January 16, 2018.
Continue Reading Petitioners Will Pay More for Immensely Popular AIA Trials

On November 7, 2017, the USPTO issued a Final Rule recognizing that communications between U.S. and foreign patent practitioners and their clients that are reasonably necessary and incident to the scope of the patent practitioners’ authority shall receive the same protections of privilege under Federal Law as if the communication were between a client and a U.S. attorney.  82 Fed. Reg. 51570-75 (Nov. 7, 2017).  The privilege extends to communications during all aspects of USPTO practice, including traditional prosecution as well as PTAB proceedings. See 82 Fed. Reg. at 51571 (“the purpose of the rule is to protect any communication with authorized counsel from discovery in PTAB, not just communication about the instant proceedings”). The final rule is effective December 7, 2017.
Continue Reading Patent Agent Privilege Recognized in Final Rulemaking Issued by USPTO

The Board’s recent decision in Veeam Software Corp. v. Veritas Technologies, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00090 (PTAB July 17, 2017), provides patent practitioners with a framework for analyzing proposed substitute claims.  The Board’s decision, granting patent owner’s motion to amend in part, should be considered in conjunction with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., 835 F.3d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which vacated the Board’s earlier disposition of the IPR and remanded the case to the Board to reconsider the substitute claims it previously denied.  These decisions offer at least a partial framework by which the PTAB may assess motions to amend during inter partes reviews.
Continue Reading Board Decision Grants Motion to Amend With Respect to One Substitute

On October 24, 2017, the PTAB held its inaugural “Chat with the Chief” webinar. The main topic of the webinar was to discuss multiple petitions filed against the same patent. The PTAB sought to address concerns that have been raised by patent owners that challengers just keep filing petitions until something sticks, and that petitioners presenting multiple petitions unfairly gain an advantage by obtaining information from the Patent Owner’s response to the first petition or the Board’s Institution Decision that help provide a roadmap for the subsequent petition. The PTAB presents results from an internal study that appears intended to alleviate these concerns.
Continue Reading PTAB says 58% of Patents Survive Post-grant Proceedings Unchanged

play button
Vector play icon on dark gray background with shadow

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit held “that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be considered for claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer.” Aylus Networks, Inc., v. Apple Inc., Appeal 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017). In so holding, the court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Apple Inc’s AirPlay feature does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412. Critical to the district court’s judgment was its claim construction of the limitation “wherein the CPP logic is invoked” to “require only the CPP logic is invoked.” (emphasis added). The Patent Owner’s arguments presented during the pre-institution phase of the IPR proceeding compelled the district court to construe the claim so narrowly that the court also concluded that the accused AirPlay feature does not infringe.Continue Reading Patent Owner’s Optional Preliminary Response Avoids IPR, But Dooms Infringement Action

In a split opinion in Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation, the Federal Circuit has again overturned a final written decision issued by the PTAB determining that challenged claims in an IPR were not unpatentable, a development that should at least cast doubt on the validity of patents that survive challenges at the PTAB.

Homeland initially petitioned the PTAB for an inter partes review of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,688 (“the ’688 patent”), assigned to Whirlpool, arguing that the claims were invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,609,821 (“the ’821 patent”).  
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB’s Finding of Patent Validity

Resources & Info

Arthrex and the Supreme Court Resource Center

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court has heard whether 125+ PTAB decisions rendered through October 2019 must be remanded for new decisions. Read about how that issue developed through our post.

Learn more

Our Team

PTABWatch, provided by Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, analyzes and reports recent developments concerning Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.